Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, my response to the member is that when we look at Wellington Street and elsewhere around the country at this time, we can see that all is quiet.

Do we still need the police to continue their work? Yes, certainly.

Do we need to continue to be vigilant with respect to foreign influence? Yes, certainly.

However, personally, I do not feel particularly threatened at this time, and I am not convinced that ordinary folks, who are at home right now, are feeling particularly threatened.

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, for some reason, the government sat on its hands throughout the entire crisis. It did not do a single thing. It did not lift a finger.

Instead, the Prime Minister insulted the protesters and hid in his basement. At some point, he woke up. Suddenly it became urgent to bring in the Emergencies Act to resolve the situation.

It seems like he tried to save face instead of truly trying to resolve the situation.

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the question from my colleague.

I have the impression that this debate on the Emergencies Act, which is a serious, important piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences when it is invoked, is being used as an opportunity to do some Quebec bashing. That is unacceptable.

I will not answer his question because, personally, I think it is below the belt.

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

I want to begin by saying that I did not walk down the street in front of Parliament waving a Canadian flag. I did not block the street by parking my car in the middle of it. I have never agreed with the people who decided to occupy the city. However, even though I did not agree with them and I felt it was important to follow the public health guidelines, I still think that invoking the Emergencies Act is an extreme move for this government to take.

I am sad today. I am sad because we are in a situation of extreme polarization. We are wondering how we got to this point. We might say that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role. We might also be wondering whether the government did anything to try to reduce this polarization. I do not think it did.

It is unfortunate, because the government let a bad situation drag on without addressing it. As the saying goes, the longer we wait, the worse things will get. The government did nothing to address the situation when the protesters set up across the street. Instead of trying to ease tensions and find ways to de-escalate the situation, it decided to add fuel to the fire. I think it did this because it was politically advantageous.

These people across the street were there to express their frustration. They were there to say that they are tired of the health measures. We understand. I too am tired of the health measures, but I also recognize that we need to live with and continue following these measures until they can all be lifted.

The government had a different view, however. It chose to villainize the protesters, as though it were us against them. It wanted to keep adding fuel to the fire because it was politically advantageous. We saw how that played out. Instead of showing empathy, the government chose to insult these people by doing absolutely nothing and not even trying to put an end to what was happening.

This worked in the beginning, because the leader of the Conservatives ended up leaving. The Conservatives were caught up with their own issues, having had their contradictions exposed. No one could really figure out if they were for or against the health measures. No one could tell whether they were for or against the convoy of protesters. Some were opposed, while others supported it. It was a tough time for the Conservatives as political foes.

What did the government end up doing? More nothing. It washed its hands of the whole thing and allowed the situation to deteriorate, knowing it would throw the Conservatives into turmoil. The sad thing is that the government's role is not to just stand by and be partisan. Contrary to what we have seen, it should not be partisan at all. This government adopted a partisan approach instead of dealing with a situation and improving social cohesion so we can all get along better and more forward as a society. That is the problem.

Then the government skipped a few steps. After washing its hands of the whole thing, it suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Everyone was wondering how it was possible that people could settle in for weeks with no response from the other side and why the government was just hurling insults at these people without really trying to resolve the impasse. That is what we saw.

It seemed to me that, by choosing to play with fire, the government was running the risk of getting burned. Its lack of leadership was obvious. Then the pyromaniac decided to pass itself off as a firefighter. It decided to pretend it was taking action and looking for a way to end the situation. It decided to invoke the Emergencies Act.

The Premier of Quebec did not want it. The National Assembly unanimously voted against it. Seven out of 10 provinces said they did not want it, and that is kind of a big deal. When all those stakeholders are telling the federal government it is going too far, it seems to me the government should be able to read the room, listen to people and find some other way to address the issues.

We proposed a solution to the government. We asked it not to apply the act in Quebec or to apply it only in specific areas. The government was not interested because it wanted to play politics with the Emergencies Act. It was so urgent that the government sat on its hands for weeks and did not try to resolve the situation.

Quebec had protests too. They were handled, and the situation went back to normal. A bridge was blocked, but then it was unblocked without the use of emergency measures. It seems as though Ottawa simply lacked the will.

Many critics spoke of a “health dictatorship”. I obviously disagree, but, by invoking the Emergencies Act, the Liberals kind of gave them a leg to stand on. The member for Louis-Hébert recently went so far as to say that he was uncomfortable with his government's decisions and positions because it was politicizing the pandemic. Earlier today, we learned that member is not alone. Other members within the Liberal ranks feel the same way.

As my colleague from Mirabel noted, the government knows it is in trouble. Members of its own caucus are challenging its actions. MPs in the House are challenging its actions. To us, it looks like things are not going well for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The NDP is on the fence; nobody knows yet. It has been very hard to understand that party's position lately.

The government said it was prepared to use strong-arm tactics to ensure success. Maybe it went too far, but it will never admit that. Maybe there are people on the inside who felt that way. The government decided to make this a confidence vote. Maybe it thinks people will be afraid of triggering an election, so they will toe the line and it can say it was right all along. My colleague from Mirabel shared a very interesting analysis. He said the government had decided to change this from a vote of conscience, which would have allowed people to do their own analysis of the situation and vote in accordance with their real, sincere thoughts and feelings about it, to a confidence vote.

That is an excellent explanation of what happened every step of the way. Every time the government had an opportunity to do the right thing and make the right decisions, it opted to politicize things instead. I really do not get it. The only thing the government managed to do since the start of the protest that became an occupation was haul out the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act, a law that has not been used since 1988, the year I was born. We got through all kinds of crisis situations, but not this one. This one was impossible. The government could not handle it. A few hundred people parked in front of Parliament, and the situation was out of control. The government could not deal with it. That surprises me.

I am not saying extremist elements were not present. I am not saying it was not dangerous. What I am saying is that the government let things go. The government did nothing at all. That is shameful. It tried to persuade us by forcing our hand, but the truth is it was not very persuasive.

Had the government managed to persuade us, to prove that this act was indeed necessary, then why are we still debating it when it has been in effect for seven days already?

Even this morning, it was not clear whether the government would be able to get a majority to adopt the motion. It has been a tough road. We can see that the government is not in control of the situation, even after dropping the nuclear option that is the Emergencies Act.

I want to extend an invitation to all members of the House. When it comes time to vote later, rather than voting under threat, rather than voting with a gun to our heads—because the government is always trying to push the envelope and polarize and politicize the situation—I invite them to vote according to their conscience and to ask themselves whether it was worth it.

Is invoking the Emergencies Act absolutely necessary?

We do not think so.

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to react to my colleague's speech. I need to express my disagreement with many of the things my colleague brought up in his speech, even though we will likely vote similarly on this motion.

I would like some further explanation.

From what I understand, some of the people who were protesting on the other side of the street were there for legitimate reasons, but others were no choir boys. His speech gave me the impression that he thought they were all wonderful people. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

We are talking about the Emergencies Act, but I did not hear him talk about this act. I think this is a serious situation. I for one did not wander the streets carrying a Canadian flag.

Does he think that the protesters were all choir boys?

What does he think of the Emergencies Act?

[Emergencies Act, February 21st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a few interesting points in her speech earlier. I do not have time to comment on her whole speech, but I would like to ask her a quick question.

One point she raised really struck me. She made a number of arguments in favour of using the Emergencies Act.

Here is the question I would like to ask her. Why did the government decide to invoke the Emergencies Act here and now in 2022?

How many times has it been used over the past 30 years? How many crises have been resolved without this act? What makes this crisis so much more significant than all the others? Why is the act necessary in this case? Why could the situation not have been resolved without it?

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises an excellent question. What we have been seeing since the beginning of the pandemic is that the government seems to be making everything up on the fly. When it has the opportunity to make decisions for the long term, it chooses to call an election or prorogue Parliament.

Essentially, it is not really willing to delve into certain issues or do things properly. It would rather shove decisions down people's throats as quickly as possible so they do not have time to think about it, analyze it or ask questions. It is a shame that the government is taking this approach.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I think that if we want to go further, we will also have to think about why there is a desire to increase health care funding. It is because we, as a society, chose to ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians can access health care without being forced to sell their home or take on lifelong debt just because they got sick once or twice and went through some tough times. It can be stressful and extremely difficult on families when one member has to stop working because of a long illness.

We must continue to work together to ensure that our health care system reduces social inequalities. We must ensure that everyone has access to care and can have good quality of life, free from undue stress if they become ill.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am not familiar with the measures in Alberta or with how the Alberta government chose to manage the pandemic.

What I do know, though, is that the way the Conservatives want to combat the pandemic is, essentially, to lift public health measures. I have a harder time with that because I do not think the pandemic is over. We need to send the message that this is still serious, that the blockades outside Parliament need to stop and that people need to peacefully make their way home. The lockdowns will ultimately be lifted, but for that to happen, we need to start by getting the pandemic under control.

[Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10, February 14th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. This large riding is home to many communities. It is also a very beautiful riding that I have been able to visit a few times.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that this is the evening of February 14 and I would like to say hello to my girlfriend. I want to let her know that I am here for a good reason today, which is to participate in this important debate.

Why is this debate important?

We are debating Bill C-10, which is not to be confused with the government’s defunct broadcasting bill. In fact, this Bill C-10 seeks to allow the government to spend $2.5 billion to buy and distribute rapid tests to the various Canadian provinces, and obviously to Quebec, which we wish were not a province.

We might be tempted to say that this seems fairly uncontroversial and few people would object to having access to tests. Such a position would be irresponsible.

However, this goes far beyond simply being for or against spending $2.5 billion on rapid tests. I think that debate would be a short one, or at least it would be for us. That may be why the government did not want us to study the bill in depth and chose to issue a gag order. That may be why it did not want us to dig deeper. If we were to dig deeper and look closer, we might start questioning why the federal government needs to pump extra money into the provinces and Quebec, which need it to deal with the pandemic.

We are talking about an additional $2.5 billion, which seems to have come out of nowhere, and the federal government is swooping in with this money like Santa Claus or a superhero. They want to show just how wonderful, generous and excellent they are. We all know, however, that that money is our tax money. It did come from somewhere, namely our own pockets. We are all paying.

Quebec's health care system is short on money, and the same is probably true for the health care systems in the other Canadian provinces. That is why this bill calls for deeper consideration. Even though the federal government keeps bragging about how amazing it is, every time we ask if there is going to be more money for the health care system, it tells us it spent money like never before during the pandemic.

First, I do not know if that is something to brag about. I think spending like never before is not something to boast about. What the government should be boasting about is fixing problems. Unfortunately, they are still not fixed. The pandemic is still here. I do not blame the government entirely. I think this is a global issue.

That does not change the fact that underlying problems resurfaced with the pandemic, are still not fixed and will have to be addressed someday. For example, we could talk about vaccination capacity, which is nearly non‑existent. We used to have a thriving pharmaceutical industry in Quebec a few years ago. It has all but disappeared. Traces of it remain in my riding and on the north shore in Montreal, but it is nothing compared to what it used to be.

The irony is that, recently at least, the federal government keeps trying to tell us how Quebec should run its health care system. When there is a disaster and everything is going wrong, it is easy for it to say that it could have done better. However, when we look at things properly, we might wonder if it really would have done better.

Consider one of the things the federal government is supposed to look after in case of a pandemic or catastrophe: the national equipment stockpile. It is not as though the pandemic was something that nobody could have ever predicted, and yet when the government opened up the stockpile, it turned out all the equipment was expired. Imagine if Quebec hospitals managed things like that. It would be a bad situation.

We really cannot count on the federal government, nor can we count on it to fund our health care system adequately. Quebec's health care system was really put to the test. A lot of people say the system is struggling. It is in trouble. Things are bad.

If we want to get to the root of the problem, we need to talk about the federal government's financial contribution. In 1958, the federal government covered 50% of health care costs. In 2022, it covers about 22%. There is a big difference between 50% and 22%. They are not even close. Even so, the federal government will not stop talking about how great it is. When we ask the government when it will give us money for health care, it says it has spent more money than ever during the pandemic. When we look at the actual numbers, the federal government's share of health care funding has been shrinking steadily. That is a fact. Let us look at the real numbers. The government says it is putting more money into health care. Sure, it has increased funding annually in constant dollars, but if we look at the proportion of health care costs, the answer is no. It has not kept up. The government did this knowingly.

Members will recall the budgets of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien from a time not all that long ago. I had not yet been elected, of course, but that did not stop me from taking an interest in politics. At least I was born already. It is not such a distant memory for many people. Members will recall both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, rubbing their hands together, practically giddy, when they realized they could balance their budgets by reducing transfers. As a result, on the receiving end of that plan, the provincial and Quebec governments have been struggling ever since. They have had to bring in their own austerity measures, because the federal government is starving them of funds.

Jean Chrétien liked to brag about it. In interviews not so long ago, he said that making budget cuts made him look good, and that the world was angry with Quebec. Unbelievable. That is when people began seeing the problem.

When people go to the hospital and have a hard time getting good care, they get angry and upset. The Quebec government manages health care, but people forget that a large part of it was funded by Ottawa. I say “was” because that “large part” keeps shrinking, and this is causing more and more problems.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in health care funding to 35%. We are not even asking for 50%, but 35%. It is not huge, but it would make a huge difference in the care people receive. It would make quite a difference.

Instead of patting itself on the back every time it spends $5, the government should sit down at the table and tell us what it can do to really change things and address existing problems. That is where the government should be heading, rather than looking for every possible way to starve and drain the provinces and the Quebec government, all of which need help. The feds brag about working miracles, when all they are doing is sticking band-aids on a wound that is not healing.

Naturally, with all these cuts to the federal government's contribution year after year, our health care system suffered during the pandemic. Every time that a slightly stronger wave arrives, or every time that case counts rise, the health care system becomes overloaded and can take no more. We could talk about this to all health care workers, who have had enough. They would like to be heard a little and helped. That is why we are speaking out today. We are telling the federal government that it is time to come to the table.

I was elected in 2015, and I believe that the Bloc Québécois has talked about health transfers constantly since then. It is a big problem, and it will only get bigger, because health care costs continue to grow, yet the federal government's contribution continues to shrink. That is not right, and that is why the Bloc Québécois has been joined by Quebec and all the provinces of Canada in asking the government to increase health care funding. Sometimes Ottawa is hard of hearing when Quebec speaks, and even more so when the Bloc Québécois speaks, but once in a while, the message does get through.

All that is to say that we are not giving up. For that reason, we have proposed a summit on health care, so that the federal government comes to the table and we finally solve the problem.